Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.

As part of new Spain, it was administered from Mexico much longer than that.

You are kind of missing the point, or proving our point depending how you want to take it. New Spain was not independent of course, it was part of the Spanish Empire, Mexico City was the regional viceroyalty. But it was managed, in the end, by Madrid.

No border. It was New Spain and then Mexico. Yes, Mexicans. Even English Speakers in Texas were nominally Mexican

Mexico was just the temporary colonial power at the time - not even for a generation. The Mexican period was very short - 15 years. None of the people liked them. That's why the Tejanos fought with Americans against the Mexicans.

I have studied the REAL history of the southwest, not the Chicano-studies historical fiction.

The delusion that everybody and everything was Mexican is revisionism invented by political groups - La Raza and Chicano groups. They even claim that Louisiana was Mexico because it was once controlled by Spain.

Of course Canadians are American. Everyone born & living in the Americas is, by definition, an American. What happens is that in ordinary conversation in English in the US, America is understood to refer solely to the US. Which usually is clear enough; it's when we're discussing other New World states along with the US, that we get reference problems.

No, not just in America and in English, all over the world and in every language people refer to the USA as America. The Chinese do it, the Arabs do it, the Europeans do it, and the Africans do it.

The USA is the only country in the world that includes America as part of it's actual name. It is as correct and logical for the people in the country of United States of America to call themselves American as it is for the people of the country of Mexico (official name is Estados Unidos Mexicanos) to call themselves Mexican. It is normal and correct for a people to refer to themselves by all or part of the name of their country.

If a Canadian or Mexican wants to go around calling themselves an American, fine by me. Any ensuing confusion is on them. People generally don't refer to themselves by their continentality (is that a word?) but by their nationality.

New Spain was not independent of course, it was part of the Spanish Empire, Mexico City was the regional viceroyalty. But it was managed, in the end, by Madrid.

There's two things going on in this thread:
1) Why didn't Mexico try to take back its lands. Easy to answer - it's because they didn't have the military strength and those lands were already pretty difficult to manage remotely, so it was simply a lot easier just to let it be.

2) "Mexico" as an independent entity only existed for a short time prior to the U.S. acquiring the Southwest, therefore the people in those lands were never really "Mexican"? This completely ignores 300 years of cultural history of that region where it was managed by Spain but very much as Mexican as anything can be Mexican. Why else would the Hispanic people of New Mexico all the way through the 1960s and 1970s refer to themselves as "mejicanos" (not "nuevo mejicanos" although they also would sometimes use this term.).

You can mince words all you want about whether something is Mexican on paper, but the culture tells a diffrent story.

I have studied the REAL history of the southwest, not the Chicano-studies historical fiction.

You have a political agenda. I'm not sure exactly what it is, but in any case, I'm not talking about Chicano literature (which started in the 1960s). I'm talking about reading publications from New Mexico in the 1800s and 1900s. There's a bunch of stuff from that era, written in both English and Spanish, talking about the history of that region. Read those, you'll find the history as I have described it.

By the way, I was born and raised in New Mexico, I'm Hispanic, and throughout my life have known the very peoples discussed in this thread. Not only did I grow up in a Spanish neighborhood, but I was within a five minute walk of one of the pueblo reservations.

There's two things going on in this thread:
1) Why didn't Mexico try to take back its lands. Easy to answer - it's because they didn't have the military strength and those lands were already pretty difficult to manage remotely, so it was simply a lot easier just to let it be.

2) "Mexico" as an independent entity only existed for a short time prior to the U.S. acquiring the Southwest, therefore the people in those lands were never really "Mexican"? This completely ignores 300 years of cultural history of that region where it was managed by Spain but very much as Mexican as anything can be Mexican. Why else would the Hispanic people of New Mexico all the way through the 1960s and 1970s refer to themselves as "mejicanos" (not "nuevo mejicanos" although they also would sometimes use this term.).

You can mince words all you want about whether something is Mexican on paper, but the culture tells a diffrent story.

As opposed to mincing words, you are getting to the point we are trying to tell you, all of us - there was no "300 years of cultural history". There wasn't! How many times do we need to repeat this? If there were any cultural history, it would be American Indian. These were remote territories, sparsely populated, self-governing, small trading outposts and communiites, particularly in New Mexico. 1,000 miles away from the capital of New Spain. Up until 1800 the Pueblo Indian population, in spite of being decimated by disease and warring with the Spanish, still exceeded the population of whites (which included both hispanics and anglos).

Once again, you can't claim a culture and history just because some conquistador planted a flag on some beach or spit of land centuries previously.

You can mince words all you want about whether something is Mexican on paper, but the culture tells a diffrent story.

This is the logic of revisionism: Ignore what the records show and invent whatever narrative you want. It wasn't Mexico on paper because it wasn't Mexico - there was no concept of that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dd714

Once again, you can't claim a culture and history just because some conquistador planted a flag on some beach or spit of land centuries previously.

This is exactly their logic - anything that the Spanish ever touched or claimed was "Mexico". Louisiana was Mexico. LOL

And this is actually what they are teaching to children today. "This was all part of Mexico and then the Americans stole it!".

Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.